Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ron Paul to Bill Maher: America's War on Drugs must end

page: 3
56
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
jra

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Well I'll try to reply to your post, but it might get deleted (again).


Originally posted by ravenshadow13
What I was going to say is about the statement "wouldn't they just tax is like liquor?"

My questions:
1) Would there be an age minimum?


Of course, why wouldn't there be? If it were legalized it would probably be treated just like alcohol and cigarettes.


3) And for my general argument all the time- What would we do when employers make it prohibited in their employees but everyone is legally allowed to smoke it?


Well that would fall under discrimination wouldn't it? If it's legal, then I don't think you could fire (or refuse to hire) someone because they smoked. As long as they aren't doing it at work of course.


What would we do when all the depressed unemployed people start deciding to smoke pot because it makes them feel better? Would it help them go out and get jobs?


That kind of depends on the person and how motivated they are. And little do with what they are smoking.


4) What about using it while driving? Or pregnant? Or in public? What about secondhand highs (which happens, I hear... would you want it to be legal and then everyone smokes outside or in apartments and kids start getting buzzed off of it?


You don't get high off second hand smoke. I talked about that briefly in my previous post, but that was removed. There shouldn't be a problem with use in public, just treat it like cigarettes.




posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 


Well, IMO, all the regulation about drinking while driving or pregnant, plus the right for employers to test employees with breathalyzers and things... I think it's a really good thing. Maybe it's just me. But I think that these substances have a propensity to be dangerous to others when abused by some. I don't think we -NEED- them. It would be too hard to make alcohol illegal, really, but we should stop while we're ahead with the marijuana.

But I just have a really strong, minority opinion on this topic. I really really dislike illicit substances. It's a personal thing, but whatever, I wouldn't feel comfortable with tons of people around me being high while driving or working or whatever.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Right but they could be doing it at work, and therefore employers have the right to test to make sure that they aren't. And since marijuana stays in the system for awhile, it would be like a roadblock.

You really can get high off of secondhand smoke, especially if you're sensitive and a non-user.

It's just a bad idea and making it legal would be a mess. And I would move to somewhere where it isn't legal. That would be my decision really, and none of us have control over any of this. So if it stays illegal, I'm happy. If smoking it for fun is made legal, I would leave.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


I agree with you. Though, personally, to my sense of justice, I could care less what people do that affects only themselves. Of course, drawing the line at what 'only themselves' implies is quite a gray area, when you get into it! My personal preference is for argument of secondary economic effects, such as 'unproductivity', to be discarded as subjective. But primary effects of any substance should not be ignored! It's for that reason that I would advocate, in the case of alcohol for example, accurate impairment testing for intoxication, rather than other arbitrary measurements such as blood-alcohol level. Along the same lines, for example, I could care less if the stockboy at Best Buy has been smoking something, as long as it doesn't contribute to him tipping over a forklift and hurting someone. At that point, and the real possibility thereof, I think action needs to be taken. In concordance with the respect for individual rights that society respects, of course.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
The War on Drugs is one of the most sinister things currently ailing the nation. The reality is it the method here in our ‘free society’ to warehouse worthless eaters the powers that be choose not to provide adequate employment opportunities for at the taxpayer’s expense.

Prison industries like Unicore Industries a privately held company whose stock is almost entirely owned by notable politicians churn out 600 dollar toilet seats and 1200 dollar road signs, 1000 dollar lamps and 800 dollar chairs for a few dollars a piece that likewise the taxpayer’s buy exclusively for the Federal Government to use in it’s infrastructure.

Clandestine intelligence agencies like the CIA use proceeds from Cocaine, Heroine, and Marijuana smuggled into the country through its own agents or their agents contacts to finance off the book black operations often in violation of Congressional orders to the contrary.

Meanwhile Hollywood and Madison Avenue often glorify drugs and the drug lifestyle through movies and music and video games aimed at the people Wal-Mart just doesn’t need.

If we cut out the cost of The War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism, financial and military support for Israel, and financial support for the ineffective United Nations we probably would be in the black as a nation and not in the red.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ian McLean

Originally posted by WISHADOW
So how do you discuss the conspiracies involved with America's War on Drugs then?


Simple. Same as every other conspiracy with political aspect. Follow The Money. Guess who wins by making various agricultural alternatives illegal? Who wins by making cheap, consumer-producible medical alternatives illegal? Who wins by making certain a constant privately-maintained prison system will always be full of 'offenders'? How about the lucrative business of 'rehabilitation and prevention'?

Now, answering that, who contributes to political campaigns? Who spends and influences advertising dollars?

In parallel to all that, how does the United States gain by there being a worldwide 'virtual economy', untraceable by disclosed oversight? How does that allow a government to both hide and manipulate nation enemies?

And, in the constant battleground for public opinion, how does it help to have a 'targeted enemy'? One that is not simply a person or organization that can be specifically addressed, but rather is of such a nature that encourages polarized public opinion? And as an added benefit, how could such an assumed 'battleground' be used to discredit objecting 'fringe' elements of society?

Let's ask all these questions. You can easily find many theories and much evidence, by an intelligent search of these forums. I think the answers, as they can be variously interpreted, are obvious to most ATS members. Why is this not part of the public discourse? My previous post in this thread was surrounded by 'warn' alerts. Guess what: this one won't be, and this post won't be censored. ATS is more free than unsophisticated advocates would have you believe.



Well basically the US is in a virtual war with Venezuela and all of its counterparts. It's obvious there is now an over abundance of violence and corruption headed to the United States border. Is it realistic to say that this is the real drug war? I believe so. Not so much drug intervention itself but the manipulation of corruption. The enemy created?

It is true that hardcore drugs cross the line and that is not a good thing. Cocaine and heroin are prevalent to corruption but now meth is king. Egypt most likely collapsed from this power struggle since every noble and wise ruler has been on it. I don't think that marijuana is the real money maker here. It may be driving sales but the real deal is powder. Isn't it ironic that the History Channel started airing the history of hemp around the same time that President Obama was to pick a new DEA head. The "drug tzar". What a Russian emperor? Pro-activists were hoping for a more lenient rule that could lead to decriminlization. Medical Marijuana is the hope and cure for many suffering people. But the funny thing is that all these marijuana busts were being picked up by the news networks. Well wait a minute. What happened to the coc aine and heroin busts? Those are priority and the main drive for all cartels. You never hear of it. So this is the manipulation that stops marijuana decriminalization.

In todays world and economy it would be ideal to bring back some of these cash crops into the fold and render these conspirators useless. The wealth of resources and products it can bring to the table are very beneficial to people. The economy would improve of it.

Of course responsibility comes with education and discipline like any other substance. Prohibition ended alcohol consumption or at least it established abuse and addiction centers. These are already in place. It's always introduced into the education system at an early age. Nowadays you have to deal with gangs which are the biggest culprit to this war. 13 is a big problem in the states. They drive every race to the extreme.

The environment would flourish in the light of resurrected hemp agriculture. Don't forget down south is the agriculture kingdom. South America is the sun god of cash crops. It doesn't compare to the enormity of Africa but what happens when South America burns to sand too?

And furthermore I think what is really at play here is located at the tip of South America. The huge satellite dish. The biggest on earth along with a reactor that they are trying to get to near temperatures of the sun. Now why the hell would the people of earth need a dish this big as well as a furnace that hot? And you never hear of it. You never hear much of anything that far down south. If you do it's something NASA would give you. Like "oh were just down here taking water samples of the storm that passed by. We think our satellite data can improve window pressure in the near future." It's funny too you start looking around down there and you end up in a maze.

So who's defending the dish? Who's defending the border?



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
In response to the OP. Ron Paul is a total and complete misfit because he is honest and trying to move forward an agenda that is beneficial to the U.S. Very few in government wants that.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13

What I was going to say is about the statement "wouldn't they just tax is like liquor?"

My questions:
1) Would there be an age minimum?


If there is in alcohol and tobacco and guns and driving and...well, yes there would be a betting chance of an age minimum.



2) How could they tax it unless the government was allowing it to be sold only in stores?
- This would be a huge problem. Everyone who currently grows it and sells it for profit (a HUGE amount of people, even just the people who sell it at a higher price from the suppliers that they get it from included) would be, in essence, out of a job.


Um, if they were good at it, as many are, then they could become legal suppliers for stores or something and make even more money than they do now, maybe.



3) And for my general argument all the time- What would we do when employers make it prohibited in their employees but everyone is legally allowed to smoke it? What would we do when all the depressed unemployed people start deciding to smoke pot because it makes them feel better? Would it help them go out and get jobs?


a: Some businesses actually force employees to be tobacco free, and that is a legal drug (and I am sure that most employers don't want people coming into work drunk). b: People, unemployed or not, will smoke it if they want to whether it is legal or not. Yes, I admit there are people that do not smoke it only because it is illegal, but I doubt being stoned would be a convincing catalyst for normally sober people to get a job.



4) What about using it while driving? Or pregnant? Or in public?



All these things have been addressed with alcohol and tobacco laws, as well as surgeon general warnings and such.



What about secondhand highs (which happens, I hear... would you want it to be legal and then everyone smokes outside or in apartments and kids start getting buzzed off of it?


Um, it's hard to take this fear seriously when it only takes a little common sense to resolve the issue. Do we see many children in bars? There are occasionally irresponsible parents that take their kids to a bar. Sometimes you have to take your kid with you, but I think most parents would not take a kid to a bar when they have a choice. But I digress... There would most certainly be cultural and legislative solutions to the situation. Property owners would have the last say if there is no law to cover a given situation.



...I 100% support the use of the marijuana plant for medicinal use when prescribed by doctors, as well as for the development of new fuels and for use in the textile industry.


I agree as well, but are you implying that any other use would be "wrong"?
I would assume you aren't, as you go on to say:


For all of those cases, there would be companies growing it. Companies would need to grow it, because otherwise it would become laced with illicit drugs. The FDA would need to monitor it...


I get teary-eyed from laughter when I hear people say that there is a danger of marijuana getting "laced" with other drugs. For the most part, and I mean more than 99% of the time, weed is weed. It may be weaker or stronger or a different strain or color or genetic crossover, but unless a user is "lacing" his own stash, it just isn't logical or economical to do such a thing before selling it. And anyone with any experience knows that.


So anyone who thinks that it would stay the same price, be sold by whoever, for anyone to use, and not be under very close scrutiny by their employers as well as the government to make sure that it is "healthy" and taxed... you're seriously living in dreamland.


I totally agree. Freedom + Responsibility = The Original American Dream.

:up



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
This thread is about drugs. That is against the TOS.
Drugs r bad m'kay.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by wiredamerican
 


Real easy to have that opinion when the law is on your side. And a thread about drugs is fine as long as it doesn't devolve into personal story swapping with illegal activity being discussed and rewarded.

This thread is about Ron Paul and our freedoms and the wasteful spending of hypocrites in Washington and elsewhere, and the cultural significance of the realization of his stated opinion of the war on drugs.

Back on topic...

I am always skeptical when something or someone seem(s) to good to be true. But I have yet to find one bad thing about Mr. Paul that hasn't been properly and completely explained. I wish we had someone here in Michigan like him to vote into office. It is great to see someone as well known as he is finally stick up for common sense.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
bill maher should be president, ron paul, vice president, or the other way around..as long as they're running the white house



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Living in the Dallas/Fort Worth North Texas area and the MSM here never broadcasts anything south unless it is weather or crime related
Ron Paul is in Congress with only a minimal voice in this State.
I hear everyday how people support him and all this but the reality is the Republican Party hates the guy.He speaks the truth and all in Congress know it. Both our US Senators are Republican and they never entertain Dr. Paul's ideas.


This State is run by Rich,Fat Cats.

Even if all the other States repealed criminal pentalties to civil ones, this would be the Last State in the Union to decriminilize marijuana.
It gives Employers,Insurance and the Criminal Justice System too much power.
In fact, anytime there is some pro-marijuana rally, police and local ATF sit on top of buildings and film video of everyone.I have no idea how they use the recordings but have my suspicions.

Personally, I am a smoker and a advocate, all the reasons for decriminalization are well known to everyone.Bills are being introduced every year here and before it even get's through the first round of votes it's squashed.

I will keep fighting for the right and give all the common sense thought possible but the reality is, Not in Texas...

The local elite would lose all their power.

As they say visiting Texas, come on Vacation, can't leave, cause you are on Probation.

Texas is proud to say that 76% of Texans born here never leave.That's cause they can't.

I live like a outcast and want to leave, it looks like soon I'll have to literally walk out of this Prison State to get out of here.



[edit on 23-2-2009 by Bruiex]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by Ian McLean
 


But I just have a really strong, minority opinion on this topic. I really really dislike illicit substances. It's a personal thing, but whatever, I wouldn't feel comfortable with tons of people around me being high while driving or working or whatever.


But millions of people are already using the substance. You are already surrounded by people who are high or drunk. The danger to yourself is no greater if it is legalized. There has also been a study about driving while high. People who are high are very aware of just how intoxicated they are, unlike people who are drunk. So they typically drive slower and safer when they are high.

Here is one such study.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45
 


nice i agree to this point its not whats fair or right its what makes the all glorifying dollar but it shows their bitch asses are slaves to what they have created death for an almighty dollar that cares less about anyone it slaughters everyday believe it.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
The main beef I would have with weed is one thing.

Could it make our country even more lazy than it already is?

Yes there is something called personally responsibility. But, you can not expect everyone to have it. If we ALL had it, then we would not have any laws (or much less than now).

The argument that it is a natural plant is flawed too. You know there are many natural plants and substances out there that get you high - just far worse? Should they be legal too?

I think laws for alcohol and smoking should be made if it were legalized.

Another problem is the odor. Get some people over in a suburb and light up anywhere practically, then all of your neighbors will have to deal with the smell.

I am fairly neutral on this subject, as it could have many positives and many negatives. If I had to cast a vote right now, I seriously could not make a good judgment to say YES or NO.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I really do admire Ron Paul. He's the first politician to voice his opinion without considering the media backlash. It seems to me like he doesn't run things by with campiegnists(spl?) he just says what he believes in.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
The main beef I would have with weed is one thing.

Could it make our country even more lazy than it already is?


1/3 of the country has already smoked marijuana at least once in their life. 15 million smoke it on average at least once a week. If legalized it will not have that dramatic of an effect.


Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
Yes there is something called personally responsibility. But, you can not expect everyone to have it. If we ALL had it, then we would not have any laws (or much less than now).


Well this argument can be made for anything that we currently enjoy in this country. Guns, cars, children, etc all require the person who has them to exercise some personal responsibility. Obviously some people do not and they are dealt with accordingly.


Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
The argument that it is a natural plant is flawed too. You know there are many natural plants and substances out there that get you high - just far worse? Should they be legal too?


Of course, we are supposed to live in a free society. Any substance that someone enjoys taking, if it's not harming anyone, should be legal for consumption.


Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
I think laws for alcohol and smoking should be made if it were legalized.


I agree.


Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
Another problem is the odor. Get some people over in a suburb and light up anywhere practically, then all of your neighbors will have to deal with the smell.


That is when you cross the line and what you do effects someone else. They should be dealt with similar to cigarette use. Also if you vaporize it, the odor effects are minimalized.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by ExistenceUnknown]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Also to add to the ridiculousness, hemp also falls into the same category and you can't even get stoned on it. But you can use it too replace many inferior and toxic substances produced by industry.

While hemp is illegal, it benefits the the environmentally damaging petrochemical industries. Also more trees have to cut for paper inferior to that made by hemp.

While hemp could replace most cotton crops and produce a better quality product, it would not benefit the manufactures of the pesticides used for cotton.

While the war on drugs is a waste of money for the taxpayer it's a gold mine for law enforcement agencies and the prison work force.

While marijuana is criminalized and it's medicinal qualities denied to the public, it benefits the pharmaceutical industries.

While harder more dangerous addictive drugs are being run by the CIA, the mind expanding and therapeutical drugs are demonized. And research into the effects and applications are hindered.

Just a few reasons off the top of my head.

It's obviously it's not about saving anyone from the demon weed, when far more dangerous drugs are sold over the counter everywhere. It's about corporate control, keeping people stupid and frightened and denying an ancestral right for shamanic practice.



This post was so good that it deserves another read by everyone. Well said. Every bit of it true and comon sense. If onlyh the crooks in charge could be made to read iot over and over until they gropw some bollocks..



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown
 


Good claims.

It is not that I "doubt" you - but where did you hear the numbers?

Also, I would imagine 80-90% of the 15 million you say (whatever the number, keep the percent) - are products of a criminal world (does more crimes, etc).

Would you think that legalizing marijuana would get rid of a large crime base? And no, I am not talking about being fined for just having the drug...I mean the environment that the current drug world has that sweeps kids in and practically kills them. Would THAT go away?

My personally answer to that is yes...

I personally am also a person of "Allow something, punish the abusers hard".

Do you know of any sites with economy/crime/education information and the like for Amsterdam? I am not asking you to do my research, but if you got any on hand it'd be nice. I did a quick google and found nothing.





new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join